pbi_model_summary

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating what the summary includes and explaining the two source modes ('live' and 'pbip'). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful extra detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact yet informative, with a clear opening phrase, a listed set of key contents, a usage recommendation, and a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a summary with one optional parameter, and an output schema exists, so return format doesn't need explanation. The description covers what the summary includes, when to use it, and how the source parameter works, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has only one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description fully explains the 'source' parameter, listing its possible values ('live' vs 'pbip') and their meanings, completely compensating for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool provides a compact model summary listing specific contents (counts, table sizes, measures per table, calculated columns, disconnected tables, bidirectional relationships, broken references). It also positions itself as the first tool to call for orientation, distinguishing it from detailed list tools like pbi_list_tables and pbi_list_measures.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Es la primera tool que conviene llamar para orientarse en un modelo' (it is the first tool to call for orientation), which gives clear usage context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the recommendation is strong and unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.